If while watching this most recent cinematic incarnation of the legend of Robin Hood you find yourself saying, "You know, for a Robin Hood story, there really isn't a whole lot of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor", then keep in mind that this is a prequel to the familiar tale we've come to know. Here we have a middle-aged Robin Hood who has yet to settle into his renowned modus operandi - although he is at this point a brave and honest man, openly questioning royal injustice, and paying the price for doing so. But "Robin Hood and his Merry Men", this is not. And so, for the second time this year, we have a major film based on classic source material that shamelessly appropriates the original title but is in fact something quite different. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" - actually a sequel to the Lewis Carroll original - is the other offender. And like Burton's "Wonderland", this film, despite a major budget and some big name involvement (Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, and William Hurt), Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" collapses under its own weight. (Although in its defense, the closing credit sequence does boast some cool animation...)
Despite Scott's lofty stature as one of the pre-eminent visual stylists of our time, his work hasn't really flipped my lid since "Black Hawk Down". Only then did his semi-recently adopted brand cold, kinetic visual sharpness and human remoteness really compliment the subject he was dealing with. In the past decade, besides having coined this particular aesthetic, he's also paired up with Russell Crowe numerous times. I believe that this film, "Robin Hood", is their fifth collaboration since they struck gold with 2000's "Gladiator". Both men bear such a heavy air of self-seriousness and pseudo-stoicism that I haven't ever been able to get excited about one of their projects. (I didn't see their wine-tasting movie from 2006 - their attempt to be light-hearted - but suffice to say, I was not surprised when it failed to connect with an audience.) With "Robin Hood" - an unnecessary forerunner to the age-old legend, but played as a historical epic - the already tepid Scott/Crowe pairing officially becomes stale.
I must confess I've never been an avid fan of the Robin Hood legend, so the prospect of watching a long-winded origin story (the film runs a slow 140 minutes) was not appealing to me in the first place. I was, however, hopeful of being won over by the promised sprawling action spectacle, penned by Brian Helgeland ("L.A. Confidential"). Unfortunately, the story completely failed to draw me in. But what the film lacked in compelling narrative it valiantly tried to make up for with pretty visuals, decent performances, and incredible costumes. So what we have here is a warmed-over non-historical epic about a timelessly mythic Englishman who is barely recognizable. (The names are the same, but the story has changed, in one case irrevocably so, making it nearly impossible for this film to ever get to the point B that we are familiar with. But for what it's worth, I won't spoil it.)
This Robin Hood may never wear tights, or rarely take up his longbow, but he does fight bad guys in a few fleeting large sprawling wars that are depicted without motion blur. In between those skirmishes, he takes his old sweet time falling in love with Maid Marion (Cate Blanchett), and being admired by the future Merry Men of Sherwood Forest. He only raises his voice beyond a murmur to make the obligatory inspiring speech to the masses just before the final battle. Crowe in this role is a lot like Crowe in most of his roles - he does not completely lack magnetism and warmth, but the camera somehow loves him anyway despite their near absence.
It's a shame that Ridley Scott saw fit to chuck the magic and charm of most previous versions of Robin Hood in favor of blasé political churning and mostly bloodless epic battles. This ain't Errol Flynn, folks. Heck, this ain't even Kevin Costner. The notion of Scott & Crowe going back to historical warfare and drama reminiscent of "Gladiator" may sound appealing, but what we end up with is a long hard slog to Sherwood Forest. Roll credits.
- Jim Tudor
I for one am excited that they aren't doing the typical bland Robin Hood treatment, but are sorting through the oodles of conflicting legends and coming up with something new. I wouldn't say this is shamelessly taking the title and presenting something completely different, because that assumes there is only one Robin Hood tale, and any Brit will tell you there are many many stories surrounding there folk hero. Especially in light of recent books that cast a shadow over the merry men and present them more as bandits and brigands who rob from the rich and then kept the money from themselves. People complain about the unoriginality of Hollywood, but when they try something new, people complain that they shouldn't be messing with the formula. The world doesn't need another dashing Robin Hood prouncing through the trees. It needs something dark and dirty. Not saying this is the film, but at least they are trying.
I think Robin Hood has been getting darker since "Robin and Marian" from the '70s. Frankly, I'd be happy to see a light-hearted action buddy flick as long as it doesn't go into "Men in Tights" territory.
Wowsers, that Credit Sequence is incredible. I was simply in awe of it. And make no bones about it, it is a handsome production. And for the most part, a film directed about adults.
It just plays a bit too easy with the number of characters (too few) and condensed pseudo-history-lesson aspect. I liked that it was about freedom by law, but sometimes it is overly facile about it.
On the whole, I was never bored by the film, and enjoyed the performances, and the underplaying of a lot of things Robin Hood. The big action sequences are best-of-breed, particularly the castle siege at the beginning.
I thought this was 10x better than Gladiator, but then again, I have a fairly strong dislike of Gladiator.